Clarification: So what is the cause of dissatisfaction? Is it because categorization, charging for service, etc don’t make economic sense (i.e. more efficient use of resources), or because that is not you expect from a govt (which is supposed to “look after the people” and “earn respect”)?

It is my cynical opinion that the law of the jungle applies to business at all levels. Big markets offer big opportunities. With big opportunities come all sorts of investments and talent. And for as long as these big markets offer big opportunities, they will continue to attract vast investments and human talent. So we may just have to accept that Singapore talent (indigeneous and imported alike) will be constantly tempted by these big markets and big opportunities. And if this is the way the current flows, there is little point in swimming against the tide. Swimming against the tide won’t get us anywhere.

So what can we do? Continue and expand the current policy of maintaining contact with former Singaporeans and Singapore residents and let them know that the door is still open and that they are still welcome.

We can still attract investments and talent and keep them rooted to Singapore. But we have to take a different approach. Developing niche industries is our best bet. Competing with larger countries head on is also going to end in tears.

I think the low level of cohesion amongst Singaporeans can be attributed (in no small way) to the fact that we are constantly categorized in one way or other. With the categorization comes a certain social position. And with that comes the divide between the haves and have nots. The govt categorizes citizens almost all the time. Citizens categorize other citizens. It would certainly help if we could do less of this. And it might be most effective if we start with the mass media. The mass media is chock a block with all kinds of categorizations.

It also doesn’t help when the govt appears to be collecting money for almost every service it provides. It ensures services pay for themselves. But it just leaves people wondering if there is any difference between a private company and a govt. It helps even less when the govt announces that GLCs are privately run companies with no govt influence (which is hard to believe) and competes with local enterprise by engaging in all sorts of businesses large and small. Not to mention GLCs that jump on the bandwagon and hire cheaper foreign workers over local ones.

- How effective is the kind of “closer knitted social relationship” between the state and the people — the system of (the state’s) reciprocal responsibility for (the people’s) feudalistic loyalty — at fostering a stronger sense of national identity?

- And ultimately how effective is it at influencing people to choose to stay over pursing their dreams aboard?

One thinking is that it is industrialization, i.e. increased productivity, that has improved life. Productivity not in the sense of merely working hard, but producing more and better for each person.

One predominant factor is a system of employers/producers weeding out any inefficiencies to get more productive so that consumers/stakeholders get more and better goods and services. So workers benefit as consumers, but not directly from their employers.

We all know that it’s not a perfect system but it is also a system which has brought tremendous progress to the West. And many people are pursing their dreams in the West for the economic opportunities. So how does this model fit into Eastern societies? Where are the bounds? What sort of mix best suits us and how?

We may feel a sense of belonging when we think about family, friends and physical places. But when we think about our relationship with the government and employers, everything is at arm’s length and transactional. I suppose it gets the best value for money out of us citizens and workers. I also suppose it is the best for the govt and employers. But it leaves us feeling milked.

There is no contradiction. You have to understand what science is about.

Do you think research gives a definite solution to every problem? If it doesn’t, do you think it’s entirely worthless?

Science is about getting to know the real world as far as possible, and making decisions as sound as possible. An undesirable outcome doesn’t invalidate a sound decision on hindsight.

You have to reconcile the strengths of scientific reasoning with its limitations to live in a real world.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/4352?l=1

- You may assume that people THINK that life sucks, but life actually sucks in SG, its sharing my PERSONAL experience (like Julian Hong’s blogs, its personal experience.)

- Yes, it hardly resolves the problem but is not being allowed to voice out even further from solving any problem?

SingaShadow: “no amount of research can eliminate the need for the final “gut-feel” judgment calls, and some calls go wrong, and more people will flare up (even though it is not an indication that policy-making become worse).

- You contradicted your earlier statement that you agreed “public policies should be justified by research as far as possible”. Are you saying now that it is better to use one man’s ‘gut-feel’ or even a team’s ‘gut-feel’?

SingaShadow: “Then again, transparency is not entirely meant to satisfy emotions. You cannot expect the people to see the big picture, to possess initiative, think critically, become ambassadors, etc. if all they can do is to speculate.”

- Of course transparency is NOT meant to satisfy emotions. Transparency is the minimum expected. You cannot expect people to be clever but you also cannot expect people to be stupid! Are you saying you do not have faith in Singaporeans enough to be transparent? because they are not clever eough and because they speculate? This is what I call STEROTYPING to your advantage. Why is it not possible to you that people speculate because there is NO transparency, there is no transparency so people speculate?

I second the suggestion that public policies should be justified by research as far as possible. To be fair, I, like Vikram, believe that it is already being done. But not making the research findings and decision-making processes transparent is as good as making governance appear totalitarian and arbitrary.

Of course, there’s the standard reason in the name of national security but more often (and perhaps also more politically incorrect) there’s the belief that the society aren’t ready to deal with more transparency — because no amount of research can eliminate the need for the final “gut-feel” judgment calls, and some calls go wrong, and more people will flare up (even though it is not an indication that policy-making become worse). I can understand that.

Then again, transparency is not entirely meant to satisfy emotions. You cannot expect the people to see the big picture, to possess initiative, think critically, become ambassadors, etc. if all they can do is to speculate. I think the government understands that. So it’s a matter of time more transparency comes. And if the people want to accelerate the process, only constructive demonstration is going to help.

Back to the topic of people-drain. Some suggestions:

- Economy: Continue to create more opportunities locally, so that people don’t have to resort to go overseas to purse their dreams. This also means people have to understand limitations of a small population and economy. There will be more immigrants, tighter integration with external economies, and also more competition. (Note that people who leave aren’t afraid of these three factors)

- Government scholarships: Revise the scholarship system to reduce attrition rate (shaming bond breakers is not working). Currently, “native government scholars” have to serve their bonds in the sponsoring organization (for e.g. SAF, Police, PSC, EDB, PUB, etc.) while “sponsored foreign scholars” are only require to work in Singapore without restriction. A possibility is to allow government scholars to switch sponsors, and possibly extending it to require them to working in Singapore only or even overseas offices belonging to Singapore government or companies. This may entail that the each civil service department has to become more agile and better at human resource management in response to less micro-control over manpower planning. The public may also have to be prepared for a leaner civil service which offers less job security.